A recent case with a loss arising in Oklahoma but litigated in New York is a reminder that sometimes the outcome of a claim dispute has very little to do with the merits of the loss and everything to do with policy terms, timing, and strategy. It is the kind of decision that should be read carefully by every public adjuster because if you miss contractual deadlines to file suit, the courthouse door slams shut, no matter how strong your claim may be.
The policyholder had a classic underpayment dispute. The carrier acknowledged damage, paid a portion of the claim, and the parties disagreed on the amount of loss. The policyholder hired a public adjuster, invoked appraisal, and attempted to resolve the dispute.
The policy required that any lawsuit be filed within two years of the date of loss. Not the date of denial, the date negotiations broke down, not the date appraisal was demanded or refused. The loss occurred on or before June 27, 2023. The lawsuit was filed on August 8, 2025. That is outside the two-year limitation. The court, following New York law, enforced the provision exactly as written and dismissed the entire case with prejudice. 1
The policyholder’s Texas attorney argued that, under New York law, a breach of contract claim accrues at the time of breach, which in this case was the date of the partial denial. However, New York law allows parties to agree to shorter limitation periods and to define when those periods begin to run. The court had little difficulty rejecting the argument because the policy language was clear. The parties had agreed that the clock starts on the date of loss. Courts in New York routinely enforce that language. The policy said what it said, and the policyholder missed the deadline.
This policy also contained a forum selection clause and a New York choice-of-law provision. The properties were in Oklahoma. The loss occurred in Oklahoma. The policyholder was based in Oklahoma. Yet the dispute was governed by New York law and had to be litigated in New York. Those provisions are increasingly common in surplus lines and commercial policies. They are usually enforceable, and they can dramatically change the legal landscape of a claim.
One of the most troubling aspects of this case is the timeline. The public adjuster was retained in March 2025. Appraisal was invoked shortly thereafter. The lawsuit deadline expired in late June 2025. The lawsuit was not filed until August. That means the claim was being actively worked, appraisal was being pursued, negotiations were ongoing, and the limitation period expired in the middle of that process. Public adjusters can get sued for negligence when things like this happen. Their own valuation work already points to the amount the policyholder was harmed by that negligence.
The lesson is that when a policy contains a contractual suit limitation, especially one tied to the date of loss, someone must be tracking that deadline from day one. As that deadline approaches, the claim needs to be evaluated by counsel, not just adjusted. Filing suit does not mean abandoning appraisal or giving up on settlement. It means preserving the policyholder’s rights so that all options remain available.
Public adjusters are on the front lines of these disputes. They are often the first professionals brought in after a loss. That position carries responsibility. When you see a policy with a two-year limitation running from the date of loss, and especially when you see a forum selection clause pointing to a jurisdiction like New York, it is a signal that the rules of engagement are different and delay can be fatal.
Thought For The Day
“A stitch in time saves nine.”
— Benjamin Franklin
1 Interstate Investments v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., No. 25-CV-8773 (S.D. N.Y. May 4, 2026). See also, Complaint, Insurer’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Policyholder’s Memorandum in Opposition, and Insurer’s Reply Brief.